Temamai v Tiaeki [2024] KIHC 26; Land Appeal 19 of 2022 (3 September 2024)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KIRIBATI

HIGH COURT LAND APPEAL 19 of 2022

BETWEEN:
TEANGARA TEMAMAI IBUKIN KN OKOBETA
RUATARA
Appellants

AND:
TANIMWAKIN TIAEKI IBUKIN NA ITINANG RUATARA
TIAON BUNANA IBUKIN BUTAAKE RUATARA
TARATI BAUERI IBUKIN KN OKOBETA RUATARA
Respondents

Date of Hearing: 07^th March 2024
Date of judgment: 03^rd September 2024
Appearances: Ms Batitea Takanito for the Appellants
Mr Banuera Berina for the Respondents

JUDGMENT

A brief fact of the case;

1. The case was brought from the Magistrates Court by the Appellants against the decision in MKlan 94/21. The decision of the Magistrates Court found that the Respondents are also co-owners of the land Kumekumeia 133 and therefore they should be registered together with the Appellants who were already registered owners on that land.
   
2. The Appellants were not satisfied with the decision hence this appeal.
   
3. There are 3 grounds of appeal presented before this court and each will be dealt with respectively as follows;
   

Grounds of Appeal;

(i) The Magistrates Court erred in law and in fact in holding that the Respondents should be registered on the land Kumekumeia 133 in that the land is registered solely under Bukanibeti Tiata and the land is not jointly owned by the Respondents ancestors, Itinnang Ruatara, Butaake Ruatara and Okobeta Ruatara.

4. Counsel for the Appellants submitted that the land Kumekumeia 133 have several registered owners and the Appellants’ ancestor Erebuaka Tiaon was also a registered owner over the land. Counsel further submitted that in CN 24/54, the Appellants’ elder by the name Nan Tiata registered his name after Erebuaka and then followed in a later decision in MKlan 38/17 where Bukanibeti Tiata was registered after Nan Tiata.
   
5. Ms Tekanito argued that the Respondents have their ancestor Itinnang Ruatara whose name is also registered over the land Kumekumeia 133 and it is right for them to register their names after their ancestor but not as joint owners with the Appellants.
   
6. On the other hand, Counsel for the Respondents submitted that the Respondents’ ancestors are also registered owners of Kumekumeia 133 and so they should be registered over the land. Counsel further submitted that the registration was not made after the ancestors of the Appellants, but after their ancestor, Itinnang Ruatara, thus the registration made by the Magistrates Court is correct to find that the Respondents’ ancestor is one of the registered owners over the land ascertaining the rights to the Respondents to register their name over Kumekumeia 133.
   
7. Having heard both sides, this court finds that from the land list presented, it is correct that the ancestors of both parties were registered owners over the land Kumekumeia 133, meaning the parties in this appeal have interest to the land.
   
8. Furthermore, the registration case’s proper procedure is for a party to register his or her name after their ancestor or predecessors in title. Therefore, in this case, both parties have the right to register their title over the land in accordance to the law after their ancestors as evident in the land list (joint-owners). For these reasons, ground one is allowed.
   

(ii) The decision allowing the Respondents’ registration on the land Kumekumeia 133 interferes with an earlier court decision in case MKlan 38/17

9. Counsel for the Appellants cited the case of Teteki vs Tata [2005] KICA 9 where it decides the leading principal which states that ‘a claim can only be heard once. If the case has already been dealt with before it can be decided only once and cannot be raised again’.
   
10. Counsel submitted that the registration over the land Kumekumeia 133 had already been made in MKlan 38/17 therefore the later decision in MKlan 94/21 should not be binding and has no legal effect. Counsel further submitted in her rebuttal that the interest of the Appellants has been affected by the decision where the registration is not made after the ancestors of the Respondents Itinnang Ruatara but it is made as joint owners with the Appellants.
    
11. On the other hand, Counsel for the Respondents submitted that the Respondents’ ancestor is also a registered owner of Kumekumeia 133 and it is in their rights that they are also owners of the land and they should be registered. Counsel further submitted that the registration is meant for the Respondents to be registered over the land after their ancestor, it is nothing to do nor override the decision in MKlan 38/17.
    
12. Having heard both sides, the court finds that it is very clear in the decision of the Magistrates Court in MKlan 94/21 that the Respondents are registered with the Appellants over the land Kumekumeia 133. It does not clear in the decision whether the Respondents are registered after their ancestor Itinnang Ruatara, and if it is true that the intention of the Respondents to register their names after their ancestor, a proper procedure to register the Respondents over the land, must be made in a separate registration proceeding and by that, each other’s interest over the land will not be affected. For these reasons, ground 2 is allowed.
    

(iii) The Magistrates Court erred in law in not given the Appellants a chance to prepare their case.

13. This court has given this opportunity to the Appellants during the hearing of this appeal, therefore no need for this court to make its finding on ground 3.
    

ORDER

For the above reasons,

1. The appeal is allowed.
   
2. The decision in MKlan 94/21 is quashed.
   
3. Cost to be taxed if not agreed.
   

MR ABUERA URUAABA
Commissioner of the High Court

TEETUA TEWERA
Land Appeal Magistrate

MORIATI MOTITI KOAE
Land Appeal Magistrate